Recomenations needed!

[nitram]

Here is one for all the gurus out there!

I need a motor for my tadpole recumbent project.. RAPTOR

witch motors and ECS manufactures are recomended for such a machine...
a speed of 40 mph is enough... no need to burn rubber from a dead start...

 

[deardancer3]

could use some detail on your tadpole, like rear wheel size and type gearing.

I would urge you to attempt a chain drive such as a cyclone.

d

 

[MitchJi]

Hi,

Motors:
Astro 8150 or 3220.

Esc Castle HV160.

 

[liveforphysics]

Any of the big RC motors with sensors fitted, and a 6-fet infinion would be a fine choice.

High budget and space/tools for multi-stage gear reduction, the 3220 Astro fitted with sensors would be a great choice.

Lower budget, the big HXT motor fitted with sensors and a single-stage would be a great choice.

 

[nitram]

Thanks !

For the rear wheel its from a Honda PA50 moped.
it has a 5.5:1 gearbox built in the hub which can be disengaged via a togel. V belt input and a free wheel chain drive on the other side. on a 22 inch rim so almost a 26inch diamater wheel.

ill probably change the V belt to a 1inch timing belt for better power transfer.

in other words a perfect fit for this type of build...

As for outrunners??? what is the easiest setup to build... not the cheepest but the simple effective solid design....and what type og gearing ratio should i ame for?

I was inspired by Matt s e drive but i am looking for a simpler design.

Ill try to snap a few pics of the wheel this weekend.

 

[etard]

Yes, please post pics, especially of that rear hub, it sounds very interesting! I think if you want "simplicity" Matt S drives are your best choice. They have proven themselves as solid and troublefree time and time again. It seems anybody trying to mimic his drive has run into more problems than worth the extra effort. But if you already have a 5:1 reduction in the hub than the simpliest option would seem to be something along the lines of what Aussiejester has done with that rear pulley. I don't know if a large pulley will fit in your rear dropout alongside that moped rim though. A #219 chain drive could work also and be a little slimmer if space is an issue, you can get an 11 tooth drive sprocket to a 95 tooth rear and that should get you in the neighborhood for an HXT or Astro. Also, for pure simplicity look no further than roller friction drive, it sounds like this would actually be ideal for you since breakneck acceleration is not a major concern, one of these systems could be very stealth on your tadpole, you could do away with that moped rim and be a much lighter setup overall.

 

[MitchJi]

Hi,

But if you already have a 5:1 reduction in the hub than the simplest option would seem to be something along the lines of what Aussiejester has done with that rear pulley. I don't know if a large pulley will fit in your rear dropout alongside that moped rim though. A #219 chain drive could work also and be a little slimmer if space is an issue, you can get an 11 tooth drive sprocket to a 95 tooth rear and that should get you in the neighborhood for an HXT or Astro.

With the 5:1 hub that's almost 45:1 which is probably too much. Also if you use a #219 with an 11t sprocket for the primary reduction it will make a racket. Matt said that, due to noise 14t is the minimum he recommends with #25. One of the reasons he prefers #25 is he said its a quieter than #219.

A V-belt will be a dog for efficiency. Is the 5:1 reduction on both inputs? Because a 5:1 reduction will be great for an RC motor but you can probably forget about pedaling.

 

[etard]

Hi,

But if you already have a 5:1 reduction in the hub than the simplest option would seem to be something along the lines of what Aussiejester has done with that rear pulley. I don't know if a large pulley will fit in your rear dropout alongside that moped rim though. A #219 chain drive could work also and be a little slimmer if space is an issue, you can get an 11 tooth drive sprocket to a 95 tooth rear and that should get you in the neighborhood for an HXT or Astro.

With the 5:1 hub that's almost 45:1 which is probably too much. Also if you use a #219 with an 11t sprocket for the primary reduction it will make a racket. Matt said that, due to noise 14t is the minimum he recommends with #25. One of the reasons he prefers #25 is he said its a quieter than #219.

A V-belt will be a dog for efficiency. Is the 5:1 reduction on both inputs? Because a 5:1 reduction will be great for an RC motor but you can probably forget about pedaling.

Thanks Mitch, I was adding the reductions not multiplying, hehe

There's actually very little options, once you get down to brass tacks.

Sensored: Infineon
Sensorless: HV160 or Turnigy 200 amp Monster

Bulletproof motor: Astro 3220
Budget motor: HXT 130

Drive:
1. chain (#25, 35, 219, or bicycle chain)
2. Belt (v-belt, gearbelt 15mm wide, 8mm pitch)

Battery: LIPO (what else would you want )

Throttle:
Magura twist grip
Bladez thumb push
Custom, Matt might make you one, or build your own...

Options: Throttlelizer, GGoodrum/Fechter BMS, Regen brakes, strawberry shortcake stickers :lol:

Ok, I have a question:

Why not V-belt? He doesn't want accleration, he wants speed. He already has the pulley on there, it should be relatively quiet, right? Also, if he goes senorless, wouldn't a V belt slipping actually cure the cogging effects? So it slips, losing efficiency, but wouldn't you actually gain that efficiency back by taming the amp spikes from cogging? V-belt would be one of the few items on the drive that you could easily fix by going into the local auto parts store too.

 

[MitchJi]

Hi,

A V-belt will be a dog for efficiency.

Why not V-belt? He doesn't want acceleration, he wants speed. He already has the pulley on there, it should be relatively quiet, right? Also, if he goes senorless, wouldn't a V belt slipping actually cure the cogging effects? So it slips, losing efficiency, but wouldn't you actually gain that efficiency back by taming the amp spikes from cogging?

I wasn't referring to slippage. V-belt pulleys grip the belt by pinching it into the V. To get a good grip requires a significant pinching which causes a substantial loss of efficiency.

 

[etard]

Sorry to get off topic here, but you are saying there is rolling resistance from this pinching action? I know there are different profiles of V's, so maybe one is more efficient than another? What are the trade -offs? All drive systems have losses in efficiency. He wants Simplicity, it doesn't get much more simple than already having the part in hand!

 

[MitchJi]

Hi etard,

Sorry to get off topic here, but you are saying there is rolling resistance from this pinching action?

I was wrong. I posted a question in a thread discussing some of the limitations of toothed belts asking "wouldn't be easier to use V-belts?". Matt responded that the efficiency of V-belts is bad and I jumped to the conclusion this is related to the pulley gripping the belt on the side.

I just googled the following:
http://www.plantservices.com/industrynews/2010/015.html

By maintaining an appropriate belt-drive tension, and assuming certain standard design and maintenance criteria, wrapped V-belts can achieve up to 95% efficiency, while notched V-belts can achieve about 98% efficiency.

http://www.gates.com/brochure.cfm?brochure=5262&location_id=6196

Due to belt slippage, V-belt drives lose up to 5% of their efficiency after installation. V-belts stretch as they wear, making slippage worse, which can decrease efficiency by as much as 10% unless corrected by periodic retensioning. Cogged or notched V-belts can increase efficiency by 2% over standard designs.

Due to their high efficiency ratings (as high as 99% on a continuous basis in a Poly Chain GT2 drive system), synchronous belt drives can also lower energy costs compared with roller chain drives, which typically operate at 91-94% efficiency, or V-belt drives, which when properly tensioned, operate at 93-95% efficiency.

Thanks for helping me catch my mistake.

Mitch

 

[etard]

Thanks for posting that Mitch, I wasn't trying to call you out on anything, I was just wondering how V belts have gotten passed over, when they might actually have an advantage in this application. You might have been thinking about the efficiency of the CVT transmission style as it pinches the belt outward as the pulley gets bigger.

 

[nitram]

Thanks guys for all the info !!!

Here are the rear hub pics i promised!

I noticed somthing on the belt drive side ..it was used as a CVT it is spring loaded variable size.

As for sensors???? what are they for?

 

[nitram]

P.S. Hum....
just thougnt of somthing stupid...
how about using the other side of the CVT V beld system? ide have an automatic transmission!?
Even more torque at low speed and self adjusting top speed. and since the RC motors have nice and high RPMs simular to ICE motors 8500 rpm or more... it would almost be a perfect fit... with a bit more high end!

also how much HP horse power whould these RC motors hawe compared to a 1.5 to 2 HP original ICE ?

 

[gwhy!]

P.S. Hum....
just thougnt of somthing stupid...
how about using the other side of the CVT V beld system? ide have an automatic transmission!?
Even more torque at low speed and self adjusting top speed. and since the RC motors have nice and high RPMs simular to ICE motors 8500 rpm or more... it would almost be a perfect fit... with a bit more high end!

also how much HP horse power whould these RC motors hawe compared to a 1.5 to 2 HP original ICE ?

Hi nitram,
This topic may be of intrest to you http://www.endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17389

 

[MitchJi]

Hi nitram,

also how much HP horse power whould these RC motors hawe compared to a 1.5 to 2 HP original ICE ?

How about this 15kw $300 motor?:
http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16728

Summary here:
http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17217&start=45#p255543